Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NATO / Russia military power and nuclear weapons

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by citanon View Post
    Gentleman for that part of my question I'm referring to the strategic arsenal specifically. No doubt Russia now has far inferior conventional capabilities, but they have concentrated limited resources on modernization of their strategic force.
    I'm talking solely about their nuclear delivery systems.

    Bulava ain't coming in fast enough to replace older R-29 iterations for SLBM (not that Russia's really building any SSBN in sufficient quantities either), a R-36M2/UR100N replacement still seems miles away. The latter in particular has led to Russia only having some 40 (modernized) MIRVed R-36M2 with 400 warheads left, with those intended to serve until a MIRV replacement based on Topol-M is introduced around 2019. All Topol and Topol-M in service, and that ain't all that many really, are single-warhead. The rather numerous UR100N and the 1200+ warheads they mounted were retired pretty much wholesale over the last five years since they had reached their shelf life of 22-25 years (... since the last were built in the late 80s).
    Last edited by kato; 12 Apr 14,, 23:49.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by kato View Post
      I'm talking solely about their nuclear delivery systems.

      Bulava ain't coming in fast enough to replace older R-29 iterations for SLBM (not that Russia's really building any SSBN in sufficient quantities either), a R-36M2/UR100N replacement still seems miles away. The latter in particular has led to Russia only having some 40 (modernized) MIRVed R-36M2 with 400 warheads left, with those intended to serve until a MIRV replacement based on Topol-M is introduced around 2019. All Topol and Topol-M in service, and that ain't all that many really, are single-warhead. The rather numerous UR100N and the 1200+ warheads they mounted were retired pretty much wholesale over the last five years since they had reached their shelf life of 22-25 years (... since the last were built in the late 80s).
      Very interesting post Kato. Can you recommend some resources to read up on these numbers?

      Comment


      • #18
        Guys, I just realized something posting to the railgun thread:

        How scary would it be to the Russians, if it turns out Mach 7 guided shells from those rail guns can intercept ICBM warheads.

        The ICBM reentry vehicle is coming in at something like Mach 25, but they will be tracked from a long ways out (even if they knock out the satellites you've still got the AESA radar that can be installed on site). The shells will be guided, meeting them head on and fragmenting into submunitions at the last second. If you had more than one gun at a time each shooting a shell per second can it stop a warhead before it gets within 10 miles of the target?

        If it turns out the gun can intercept ICBM warheads can the attacker do an airburst outside of interception range to fry the electronics?

        What if it turns out these guns really can intercept ICBM warheads and the systems cannot be fried from long range? How many would you need to defend a military base.... or a city?
        Last edited by citanon; 13 Apr 14,, 00:15.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by citanon View Post
          Guys, I just realized something posting to the railgun thread:

          How scary would it be to the Russians, if it turns out Mach 7 guided shells from those rail guns can intercept ICBM warheads.

          The ICBM reentry vehicle is coming in at something like Mach 25, but they will be tracked from a long ways out (even if they knock out the satellites you've still got the AESA radar that can be installed on site). The shells will be guided, meeting them head on and fragmenting into submunitions at the last second. If you had more than one gun at a time each shooting a shell per second can it stop a warhead before it gets within 10 miles of the target?

          If it turns out the gun can intercept ICBM warheads can the attacker do an airburst outside of interception range to fry the electronics?

          What if it turns out these guns really can intercept ICBM warheads and the systems cannot be fried from long range? How many would you need to defend a military base.... or a city?
          They can still cause a "data overload error" to your fancy system.
          No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

          To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Duellist View Post
            I agree NATO is not standing still, and defence budgets should increase in light of Putin's latest actions, on top of the gradual economic recovery. However, the Russians are also moving to a brigade based force structure.
            They've got a long way to go. They're still thinking regiment instead of brigade.

            Originally posted by Duellist View Post
            Surely the disparity in armour, gunnery and sighting had some role to play in the lopsided mauling at, say, 73 Easting?
            No doubt but you've missed the point. Our training was far superior to the Iraqis. They had superior artillery to us and we still plummelled them. We had the training to choose the proper tools. Had they M1s and we T-72s, it would not be our T-72s engaging them. It would have been our artillery ... and if we had theirs, it would be superior to theirs having ours.

            Comment


            • #21
              Sir,

              Ah yes OK get your point now. The concept of joint service co-ordination gives us that flexibility. The Iraqi officer corps didn't come close to their Soviet counterparts, and I guess neither does the Russian Army today.

              In which case it shouldn't be too difficult to ramp up for NATO if things got serious, Cold War style- we already have the experience and concepts in place.

              Comment


              • #22
                Duellistt Reply

                Duellist,

                First, congratulations on finding our member intro thread. Courtesy, manners and etiquette are admired here. Your pathway to this thread, therefore, is appreciated.

                "In which case it shouldn't be too difficult to ramp up for NATO if things got serious..."

                Things ARE serious but it'll actually be damned difficult to "...ramp up...".

                1. You're discussing NATO members. Most of that membership survived 1945-90 on niggardly defense budgets...and America. Things were FAR more serious then.

                2. The doctrine to support our operational art is proven, likely still very valid and intact. Little else. Mostly, however at this stage, the individual and collective leadership to mobilize public opinion classically un-prepared to chew tough problems and accept difficult solutions is utterly absent.

                In short, this is a political issue of massive (for our present day) proportions. The military issues are demanding but subordinate to the over-arching political malaise now gripping the west.
                "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
                "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by S2 View Post
                  Duellist,
                  In short, this is a political issue of massive (for our present day) proportions. The military issues are demanding but subordinate to the over-arching political malaise now gripping the west.
                  I wonder if what you have encapsulated here is not a general pattern that has been developing over time, with the absence of the real potential for military clashes between major powers and the seeping away of core ideology as a motivator, now replaced by ever increasing economic interdependence, there just isn't motivation to poke a beehive. A political malaise rooted in the changing nature of the world economy, and in most cases, it's a positive force.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    tantalus,

                    "...there just isn't motivation to poke a beehive. A political malaise rooted in the changing nature of the world economy, and in most cases, it's a positive force."

                    Only if you believe we created NATO and a western alliance to promote as the highest ideals strictly narrow self-interest. I've long worried about this. Europe placed little value in the security system which enabled their phenomenal post-war recovery. Europe received immense reconstruction assistance and, equally, a massive commitment to their defense from America. That stayed the case for forty-five years and continues now in a reduced form.

                    No doubt it was in America's self-interest to help (supposedly) like-minded potential customers back on their feet. Europe's self-interest as well. Western Europe rebuilt itself quite nicely and never saw the Soviet horde west of the Elbe (more or less).

                    I hope we all know that wasn't because of the ferocious commitment to self-defense made by Europe then.

                    I fear too many Europeans are betting the same again. It's nice to assume all leaders of nations are baked in the same cookie-cutter western fashion of polite and largely meaningless discourse disguised as "dialogue" while possessing distinct predilections for "action committees" and "focus groups".

                    All it takes is one leader with the means and preparedness to go "barbarian" on this whole edifice. Indecision and hesitation will provide all the maskirovka necessary. That's already proven with The Ukraine.
                    "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
                    "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by S2 View Post
                      Indecision and hesitation will provide all the maskirovka necessary. That's already proven with The Ukraine.
                      What would you see as an adequate and well measured response from Europe?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by tantalus View Post
                        What would you see as an adequate and well measured response from Europe?
                        To have a forward answer to this is to realize what Europe (here I men EU) wants in Ukraine.

                        The way I see it, they needed a new market and wanted to open it with peanuts. Now that the SHTF they re clueless (as usual) and full of empty threats (as usual +1).
                        No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                        To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Politically,stop being what it is now.Militarily it's easy.For heavens sake,we're talking 25 bde's.Just donate some weapons to the Eastern part and go back receiving illegal migrants with open arms.

                          If Ms Nuland was serious when she spoke of reducing the internal vulnerabilities of the ex-WP,it's the best strategy for everyone involved.If this is mixed with the restart of energy projects from Azerbaidjan and re-arming the respective ex-WP armies,in 5 years not even USSR reborn could do anything.The threat is real,but the Russians have no stamina.

                          In the long run I don't believe at all in a Russian aggression.Though the specter of it might be beneficial.The Russians are just building their defense in their West,to be free to act wherever a real danger for them comes out.The question is only how far west they'll stop.But they won't pass Dnepr or Dnestr,at worst.
                          What they do have in the long run is export of revolution.This time is not communism,but good old style nationalism and traditionalism. This is a battle of ideas.Unlike the stupid idea of the past,these ones don't have to be backed by the largest army ever.To fight them,Europe will become more like them,as it happened 50-60 years ago.And that will be good for all.
                          Those who know don't speak
                          He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            S2,

                            Thank you. For me, courtesy is an inviolable aspect of debate and discussion- some civility all round keeps the good arguments flowing.

                            The political malaise you describe is significantly exacerbated by a less than healthy fiscal situation in the EU..I doubt we will be in a position to change the position of largely free-riding on American security guarantees in the near future. In any case, the subordinate position of the EU to NATO in a common defence framework underlines that. We don't face a Cold War level threat (yet) although perceptions are doubtless fast changing with recent events in Ukraine.

                            tantalus,

                            The economic interdependence you describe is unlikely to avoid buckling in the face of core national interest, as Putin amply demonstrates with his willingness to threaten his main gas customers. Nationalism has arguably replaced ideology as the main divisive factor: China and Japan to name another prominent case the web of trade links is not preventing tension.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Duellist,

                              "The political malaise you describe is significantly exacerbated by a less than healthy fiscal situation in the EU..I doubt we will be in a position to change the position of largely free-riding on American security guarantees in the near future..."

                              Ahhh...the ol' budget plea as a rationale for America to underwrite your defense? Much of western Europe has developed a social safety-net that's the envy of the world. Why? Because thirty to forty years ago (or more) Europeans saw that we'd underwrite the greater good and exploited it to their own narrow self interest. That largesse didn't go to assuming Europe's fair share for it's self-defense.

                              You'd be amazed how many Americans awake each morning for work and grind their azzes off without one iota of the health and social welfare benefits available in Canada or elsewhere. And those tax dollars from that grind required to pick up your slack to boot?

                              That's a bit, pardon the expression, rich.
                              "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
                              "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by S2 View Post
                                Duellist,

                                "The political malaise you describe is significantly exacerbated by a less than healthy fiscal situation in the EU..I doubt we will be in a position to change the position of largely free-riding on American security guarantees in the near future..."

                                Ahhh...the ol' budget plea as a rationale for America to underwrite your defense? Much of western Europe has developed a social safety-net that's the envy of the world. Why? Because thirty to forty years ago (or more) Europeans saw that we'd underwrite the greater good and exploited it to their own narrow self interest. That largesse didn't go to assuming Europe's fair share for it's self-defense.

                                That's a bit, pardon the expression, rich.
                                Actually I broadly concur with that American critique in terms of the long run picture- I was trying to put across the strategic rationale of our leaders for their current stance.Without Marshall aid the Western European economies would have stagnated for a long time. It is time welfare reform in Europe today was initiated, something only the UK under the Coalition government has undertaken.

                                It is also high time we decreased our dependence on American largesse as you aptly put it- our technical capabilities are on par with yours but we cannot match your economies of scale. This requires willpower and political aggression, something of a rarity in a generation of leaders that come from, say, research backgrounds. Nonetheless, events in Eastern Europe may suffice to break down the resistance of public opinion to the radical changes required by geopolitical circumstances.
                                In the short run however, the US is the only power with both the assets and GDP growth to substantially underpin European security.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X